Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, count of catalog tools), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively encapsulates the tool's functionality without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and result, and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the key aspects of the tool's output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is sufficient for a simple read-only status tool. It does not describe the response format or structure, but that is not strictly required given the straightforward nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema. A slightly higher score might be warranted, but the lack of format details prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, which is the primary semantic content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning the current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The verb 'returns' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect and authenticate, which are action-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Given the sibling names, it's clear this is informational, but the lack of explicit guidance prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The only domain tool, dprf_nada_consta_multas_pagas_consultar, is clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap around connection status, installed tools, and dispatch. Their lengthy descriptions force careful reading and make tool selection ambiguous.
Six tools use short English imperative verbs such as authenticate, connect, report_bug, and show_version, but the domain tool is a long Portuguese snake_case phrase ending in consultar. The set mixes languages, lengths, and verb placement with no consistent convention.
Seven tools is not a large count, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the named DPRF 'Nada consta' service. The actual domain surface is a single consultation tool, so the count feels padded rather than purpose-scoped.
For a simple official-source query, the single consultation tool covers the core need and no CRUD lifecycle is expected. However, the server lacks any domain-specific supporting operations such as result history, formatting, or related consultation types, while the platform tools do not address that gap.